I believe all the studies use the terms, "transsexuality/transsexualism."

This "classic" bit is still a classist, homophobic fiction.

I've heard of "Classic Coke." I agree with A on the last sentence in the above comment.

The study didn't split hairs on whether the transsexuals they looked at had to follow the outdated 1970s version of what was suppose to be the correct way to be a transsexual back then, or the 21st Century highly diversified category that transsexuals fall into today. Translate "classic" to mean "old school." The 21st Century is 9 years old now.

Absolutely nothing in the study justifies the idea that your particular revered subset of trans people. This study has a small sample. The rate at which this happens in the data is so low as to potentially be meaningless as "the one true cause".

In short, you are clinging on a flimsy study, and putting your vile ideology on it, when no one has ever supported it in the scientific community, especially not the scientists you bunch of old bitter overprivileged fools have kept presenting as such (e.g. Diamond believes all gender variance to have a biological component).

I found the findings fascinating; this would be the first confirmation of any part of the LGBT community being "born that way."

When I think classic I think "Old Shcool," and the "old School" conception of transsexuality is likely what the author meant as opposed to the ill-defined spectrum of transgender expression.

This finding would certainly lend credence to the experiences of the few women of operative that I know, all describe an agitated internal state driving them forwards to full transition if possible.

Just a fascinating finding, and what implications!

Well, are those of you who decry the post saying that transsexuality is a choice, that it is mutilation and that the TS surgery tracked people are deluded and need therapy?

You are starting to sound like radfemseps if you do think so, like Julie Bindel perhaps.

What is the problem if this proves to be the biological marker for transsexuality?
For those of us with close personal friendships with some women of operative history, it is obvious that there is a subset of people currently included in TG who are markedly different in what they experience....they do tend to defin themselves as TS or, and most often in my limited experience, simply as women rather than as TG.

The acrimony developing about this is so very indicative of the interminable infighting that the LGB community watches and suffers through.

There is a divide, and yes, a noticable, real divide in the trans community. It all has ramifications for the larger LGBT community.

P

NOTE FROM BIL: I realize that this is a controversial subject and people feel very strongly one way or another. That does not, however, excuse bad behavior.

Our experiment is to talk about all sides of many LGBTQ issues so we can learn from each other. Calling names, being abusive or generally nasty will not spur learning - only more negativity.

If you need to review our comment policy, please do so now. (It's under each comments section.)

We're all adults, so I'll just remind everyone to be civil in their responses. I have faith that no one's comment will get TOSsed.

I don't know about the HBS sect, I started to read some of what was written, but the rhetoric turned me off pretty quickly, kind of like the rad-fems. This (admittedly small) study does re-enforce what I have felt for a while without any real proof, and so I feel that it's a welcome addition. I can understand that it also creates problems with the essentialism that will doubtlessly be a fallout. What if someone identifies as TS but doesn't have this genetic anomaly? would they not fall into the class that would possibly enjoy access to insurance-covered healthcare for their "condition?" Would they not be protected by a possibly favourable ruling regarding the ADA?

We can all identify as whatever we wish, that is a curse and a blessing. With scientific legitimisation of a part of the transgender spectrum, some people will have to rethink thier idea of what makes us who we are, again. This is the historical arc of Transgenderism. Terms, boxes , and identities have all changed over the past 100 years, even within my own 10 year transition. There has recently been a trend toward queering gender that I think has been brought out because we now have greater choices in living conditions and transition routes. Back in the good ole '90s, there was a distinct division among transsexuals, transvestites, crossdressers, drag kings and queens, intersex, and a less vocal group that fell outside those divisions. Now, everything is blurred and there is a growing group of LGBT people who refuse to identify as anything because the classifications of yesterday cannot encompass their identities.

What I think the author was trying to convey by using the long-outdated classification of "classic transsexualism" is that the medical and greater scientific community are still dealing with these concepts, internally. We can squabble amongst ourselves as to how we define ourselves and others like or dislike us, but the greater world is still trying to use language created by itself to define us. We define what is elitist and what is the right path within our community, and possibly, unfairly so, but to the outside world we are all the same. Ask a fundamentalist in America, and we are probably conceived as paedophillic cross-dressers. Ask a Thai person, and MtFs are probably all Kathoey, whereas FtMs may not be seen at all.

Parsing terminology and the like is all well and good, but it does nothing to further our struggle for equality and acceptance in the greater fabric of our societies. When we can get over our own egos and on to the problem of creating a united front from which to assert our rights, then we can afford the time to be nit-picky over what we view ourselves as. Right now for all intents and purposes, we're all still just queers.

"Classic?"

"O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell . . ."

Thanks for the post. I think it's important to have this perspective represented because we do tend to have a lot of folks here who tend to see HBS in different terms. Quite often it's seen more as a political perspective rather than, as you point out, the theory that transsexuality has a physiological component.

But I worry about how it actually gets applied in practice. If transsexuality has a physiological component, why a separate name for HBS folks and the trans crowd? Is that used to imply that there isn't a physiological component to transgenderism? More often than not, it seems to be a political distinction rather than a physiological one.

In fact, you seem to assume that those who criticize this study must be transgender and not HBS, what does that mean in that context? Maura in an above comment takes that further and assumes that transgender critics must of the study also oppose SRS, as if transgender people never get SRS. This is the context for HBS that I think many here have encountered more often, it's used as a political wedge to separate those who agree with you and those who don't, as opposed to a value-neutral way to reference causality.

As for the study, I think there are real problems with it that we should examine -- problems that any court would certainly tease out. First off, it was done by through Monash's gender clinic, which I hear is very restrictive and transphobic, that certainly gives me pause. And secondly, while 55.4% of trans women had the gene as opposed to 47.6% of cis men, that isn't very big when you take into account that trans women are a smaller population. See the below analysis from another blogger.

OK, OK, let's be serious now and assume that the incidence of MtF transness is 1:500, as suggested by Lynn Conway (presumably allowing for a somewhat broader definition of trans than the pink frilly one used by the clinic).

So that would mean there are 3800 trans women in Melbourne, of whom 2105 have the tranny gene, and 1695 do not.
Also, there are 1,896,200 cis men in Melbourne, of whom 902,591 have the tranny gene, and 993,609 do not.

To put it another way, there are 904,696 Melbournites who have the tranny gene, of whom a mere 2105 are trans.
Also, there are 995,304 Melbournites who do not have the tranny gene, of whom a whopping 1695 are trans.

So if you have the tranny gene, there is roughly a 0.23% chance that you are trans at all. If you do not have the tranny gene, there is roughly a 0.17% chance that you are trans at all.

Having the long version of the AR gene increases the chances of an XY individual being trans by roughly 0.06%.

http://baglieg.livejournal.com/311085.html

This is the evidenced-baaed practice person in my speaking out.

One study does not equate with fact. Many more rational control tests need to be conducted before a solid conclusion demonstrate validity. That said, one down! Less to go! Hooray!

I don't know about what everyone's saying here, but the linked article doesn't say anything about whether the study participants were HBS or transgender. I don't subscribe to Biology magazine, but maybe there was a better description of who participated in that article.

In 15+ years of studies not a single study has weighed in on the psychological causality that has been clung to fiercely by those who would demonize transsexuality as a "choice".

I don't get why "choice" should be demonization, but in our culture that cares much more about fault than it does about malice or intent, it apparently is. I hope that we can move beyond the place where we are right now that links "choice" with "mutable," "not a choice" with "genetic," and "mutable" with "you'd better effin' change."

Because even if all of the studies all came back and said that there was no genetic component to transsexualism, would you still think that people had a right to express their gender as suited them?

I know that being gay and being trans aren't the same thing, but on this front we seem to have a lot in common: there are definitely many gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who think that study that "proves" that sexuality isn't a choice (which would mean it has to be genetic, by their logic) would suddenly mean that we all get off the hook. It pains me to hear that we have so little respect for ourselves that we're looking to blame something else for our sexuality instead of living our lives to the fullest.

I do wonder about the ADA and if it will apply. It'll take a major lawsuit to change that, and I don't think this is the best supreme court to be hearing that case. Even the "liberals" on the court aren't that open to hearing anti-business cases.

PART 36 -- NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

Subpart A -- General

Sec.36.104 Definitions.

(5) The term disability does not include --

(i) Transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;

Not that the above includes 'classic transsexualism' as *transsexualism*, and that the GID not resulting from phys impair refers to any sort of get around other than IS.

Indeed, it expressly relies on the classification model presently in use in the DSM -- as was the intent of the Senator (Helms) who inserted it in there.

Going to post the same in the other thread and then start following going forward.

That's not entirely true.

Under the Benjamin scale, one is still a transsexual if surgery isn't wanted.

As always, you are Just Wrong.

Again and again, Just Wrong, especially making assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Again and again, Just Wrong, especially making assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Jennifer,

This response is to address all of your comments here. I’m sorry if you feel others have been insulting or hostile around this discussion, but I’d really like to have a non-antagonistic dialogue here.

I’m not entirely clear on what it is that you are advocating. You seem to be seeing this study as evidence that there is a genetic component precipitating SRS seeking transsexuals, which therefore provides validation, and presumably makes this population worthy of legal recognition, protections, and rights.

But it also appears as if you are trying to say that the study shows evidence that transgender people not seeking SRS do not have the same genetic component, which therefore invalidates and presumably makes this population unworthy of legal recognition, protections, and rights. At least that’s what I assume you mean by “a major blow to the transgender model.”

Now I make it a point to be respectful of all self-identifications and if you want to be seen as different from the “crossdressers, transgenderists, drag queens, etc” then I’ll wholeheartedly support that and defend that against anyone who attempts to say otherwise. However, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that in your attempt to be seen as different, you’re arguing that those you are different from are less deserving of rights, respect, and support.

Your derisive quotes around the term non-op indicates that you don’t feel it is real or valid. You place yourself in the position to determine who is and isn’t transsexual – regardless of what they have to say about it. And you claim that those who see themselves as transsexual but don’t meet your standards are somehow insulting those who are the “real” transsexuals. You say that those who are open about your trans status with others than you must be a "fake" transsexual. You even go so far as to suggest that someone identifying as transsexual yet not willing to take on a significant risk of death from medical complications during surgery must be a “fake” transsexual. All these “fake” transsexuals get put into the transgender category, which you then dismiss as people who “simply want to adopt a lifestyle.”

As someone who you would no doubt label as a “fake” transsexual, I can’t help but feel hurt and attacked when I read your comments, and I just have to wonder, do you realize how insulting you are being to other people? Why do you feel the need to do that? I really doubt it gets you any closer to obtaining your own rights.

Well, none of this transsexual gene crap really impacts my life in any concrete way that I can see. It doesn't make my life any easier and it doesn't change the fact that I am woman and that I didn't choose to be a woman the choice was made for me along time ago in mommy's tummy. I don't need a theory to validate my existence, cause I'm right here. All 5 feet 15 inches of me. The people it does impact are the kids coming out and people transitioning after me. That does concern me because who speaks for them, especially the kids?

The people who think being TS, HBS, or whatever you want to call it, is a choice will continue to do so, because they are thick as brick and proof means nothing to them. Look at all the gay bashers who still think being gay is choice 35 years after being gay was taken out of the DSM. It hasn't made "reparitive therapy" go away. Doesn't faze them in the least, cause they are religious zealots and religious belief isn't based on facts, it's based on belief. And neither the twain shall meet. If they think the Great Spaghettis Monster created the earth in six days and the earth is 4000 years old all the dinosaur fossils and in the world aren't going to change their minds. They see cavemen playing a game of catch with dinosaurs with jeezy creesy as the referee. Some people ya just can't reach....

I am post-operative with a partner who doesn't feel surgery is right for her. I believe if you need surgery you'll eat through a dead rhino's ass to get it. And I would have, had I needed to, but fortunately for me there was MasterCard..priceless. And Thailand was nice, and I healed up nice, thanks for asking.

The HBS crowd can self identify however they want, but what I don't appreciate is the fact that some people made up the term HBS and drew a line in the sand. Fine, go ahead and draw a line in the sand, it doesn't facilitate communication very well but whatever.

When people make something up they better have some medical creds when they start using it to alter the discourse of who is genuine and who isn't. I'm not HBS, I'm a woman with a unusual history. And I don't need a freaking diagnoses now cause I'm done with the medical bullshit and I don't think I'm better than someone who is gender queer or who doesn't want surgery. I just am.

What happened to saying, this is me? This is how I identify. Nothing, unless you have a sense of entitlement and let me tell ya folks the world doesn't owe you shit. If you haven't figured that out yet maybe you should start paying attention to all the people who aren't as fortunate as you and I have been. To have the ability to obtain the medical services we needed and the privileges in society to be who we are. We are all not as fortunate to have these things. Sisters are hurting out there right now. This very second. Please come down off the mountain and wake up already.

I don't see that any medical authorities pro or anti trans created this term, HBS, and I see it as some folks who think they are better than other people just trying to separate themselves from people they personally do not like. I tried to address this with some folks on the HBS website, which does have some smart people writing there and I did mentioned this, but when I disagreed with the HBS folks I got emails and my girlfriend got emails, rather stalker-ish emails, basically telling us we should change our minds or give up our identities as women. Fuck that noise... you first lady.

Ya know, it's the vitriol I can't handle, haven't we all been through enough just being ourselves, or at least trying to, to have to endure people trying to put themselves off as better with a theory with no medical cred?

That kind of superior behavior doesn't signify people with a position that is defensible. They made up HBS to feel better about themselves or whatever and I don't have a problem with that. I make shit up all the time to make myself feel better, but I don't attack people with it and I don't claim to have medical creds I do not have.

And, no you can't change my mind or defend your position by telling me I'm not genuine or attacking my girlfriend as not genuine. You want to attack my girl you better do it to my face and you better know how to defend yourself, cause this dyke doesn't like you calling her love less than who she is, she is a woman. Cowardly stalking her with threatening creepy emails or calling me a fake will get you nothing but the fish eye, if you had the guts to say that crap to my face. So lay off and cut the crap. HBS may have a some very good reasons for being created, some of which I may agree with, but until a medical body of some sort legitimizes it, it doesn't have any weight scientifically or more to the point, legislatively. Policy makers need medical creds to defend our position and HBS doesn't have that kind of cred. I don't really see the HBS crowd as helping women. I see it as divisive and, dare I say it, elitist. Oh no, I said it. Junk email bin on standby...

As far the ADA stuff goes, I did not have a disability and do not have a physical disability now. I might have a social disability, no, more like a social disadvantage. If I claim I'm disabled then you will have people with crooked teeth and bad breath claiming they are being oppressed too.
Boo frickin' hoo. Get a frickin' toothbrush, invest in a bottle of mouthwash.
Life's a bitch, put on fresh pair of panties and go to work already.

The ADA thing is old news. We a have right to exist because we're human, it's called human rights. Saying we are disabled is not a step forward, it's a step back. I also feel saying we are disabled is probably an insult to people who actually ARE disabled. I got up and put my clothes on this morning all by myself with no help, I'm not disabled. I'm just me and if people don't like me they have six billion other choices so pick another number - ya douche nozzle! I'm just fine being me. I don't need validation and I don't need someone telling me I'm lesser than the next gal.

Can't we all just get along kids?

I just want work, home, friends and family, however I personally define that. Other than being a woman with a past, I'm too fat and I don't have enough money, just like everyone else. No scientific theory, factual or not, is going to change those facts only I can.

Renee Simousek

I'm using a finger, alright.

I Just Noticed something. Is the rest of your name "R.R. Tolkien?" You are that "classic" fantasy writer! I loved your Hobbits! Can I get your autograph?

"Classic dodge?" Well, that is the perfect label to what you and Cathryn have been trying to spoon feed everyone. "Classic transsexual" IS the "classic dodge."

"Well, cowpoke, it's 'bout time you get out of classic Dodge."

NOTE FROM BIL: All comments from Just Jennifer have been removed. She was banned from commenting previously and should not have been published. I apologize for allowing them to slip through the cracks and if it makes any threads hard to follow now.

Clone me, huh? I'm flattered, but only if it makes me immensley weathy dear. And as far me being a veteran well, I got kicked out right after basic for dropping acid and missing the pot eradication duty they wanted me to show up for. Always sorry I missed that.. So, I don't think any group needs to have me representing them..what can I say I was in wierd place back then. Older and wiser now.

Renee

Okay, I'm not afraid to say this here.

"HBS is nothing more than junk science and half-baked ideas cooked up to justify the existence of trans women who need something in their lives to cling to."

HBS women will take any study that is trans related and twist the results to prove that they are more superior than other trans women. As much as they try to include trans men under the HBS umbrella, all of the articles that have been written about it are only about trans women. HBS women cannot justify the existence of trans men with their junk science and half-baked ideas.

Recently, the Religious Right pointed to John Money's debacle of the David Reimer case as "proof that a person's gender identity cannot be changed, so they cannot change their sex." Excuse me? They took the case and even though they agreed with the trans community that gender identity cannot be changed, but they then tagged it with the opposite conclusion that the case really proved.

HBS women do the same thing with legitimate trans-related studies. They take the results and twist them to get what they want out of it. Taking the results of this current study and jumping to the conclusion that the ADA covers us is a prime example of this leap of conclusions. It is amazing on how they can do that without any concrete proof, or breaking their stride.

But, in the absence of real proof, they will take the writings of other HBS women and use that to justify their statements. Then, the other woman does the same thing in their writings. This is another tactic they adopted by the Religious Right.

If you don't fit the tight HBS requirements, then you get vilified. Other trans women are called horrible names, are addressed with male pronouns and other hateful names. Renee in an above comment pointed this out. If you support equal rights for ALL people, you are vilified. If you support crossdressers, you are vilified. If you consider trans people to have a community, you are vilified. If you are a trans woman and still have a penis for ANY reason, then you are a "she-male," a term the Religious Right love to use for ALL trans women, including HBS women. Oddly enough, some of the most vocal HBS women are violating their own beliefs, because they are still "packing."

There is little or no difference between the Religious Right and the HBS women. And, just because the HBS women say they are now just women, they think the Religious Right will accept them happily. Which chapter in "The Lord of the Rings," did that idea come from?

The part the HBS women cannot seem to comprehend is that those people who hate, hates them just the same as the rest of us. The HBS women forget that if they stopped their hate language, they can take advantage of the saying, "There is safety in numbers." But, they keep screaming they don't want to be included in the trans community and we keep saying that's fine. Go away. What part of "Go away" are they having trouble understanding?

So, like the proverbial "bad penny," the HBS women keep turning up, screaming to be accepted and not wanting to be included. I guess the other thing they keep forgetting is that they catch more flies with sugar instead of vinegar. I just think they are trying to catch more flies with shit.

I am Monica Helms and I approve this message.